ic_list_food_service

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the FeatureDisabled error and how it is detected (displayOptions / 404 backstop). It stops short of other behavior an agent would want, such as auth requirements, rate limits, or how far back 'recent' reaches.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the notable failure mode second. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the safety and error behavior are adequately covered, but the description leaves open how many transactions are returned, whether results are paginated, and what 'recent' means by default. It also gives no clue about what the balance/transaction payload contains. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description says nothing about any of the five parameters. Schema coverage is only 60%: view, since, and until are well documented in the schema, but district and studentId have no description anywhere. With a mid-range coverage gap and zero compensating detail in the description, this falls below the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (student's lunch balance and recent food-service transactions), which an agent can distinguish from sibling list tools like ic_list_fees or ic_list_assignments. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the nearby money-domain sibling ic_list_fees, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g., permissions, which studentId format is accepted), and no naming of alternatives such as ic_list_fees for non-food-service charges. The only usage-adjacent information is the FeatureDisabled failure mode, which is a behavioral note rather than routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.